G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on April 13, 1993, in Bacolod City, accused-appellant Antonio Eribal shot and killed Lin Ho Chan. Eyewitness Mely Arsaga testified that earlier that afternoon, Eribal complained to her that Chan had stared sharply at him. Eribal later returned wearing a jacket and, upon seeing Chan’s carpenter Hernani Yorac, asked to speak with Chan. When Chan emerged from his house, he apologized to Eribal, explaining he had defective eyesight. Arsaga then heard a gunshot; upon turning, she saw Eribal shoot Chan in the chest. As Chan turned, Eribal shot him in the back. A third shot was fired as Chan lay on the ground. Yorac corroborated this sequence of events. The medico-legal officer confirmed the victim sustained two gunshot entrance wounds, consistent with being shot first from the front and then in the back.
Eribal admitted the shooting but claimed self-defense. He testified that after a near-collision with Chan, he went to Chan’s house to talk. He alleged that during their conversation, Chan suddenly pulled out a gun. A struggle ensued, and the gun accidentally fired, killing Chan. Eribal claimed he then panicked, fired more shots, and fled. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted Eribal of murder qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder qualified by treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court found the prosecution evidence, particularly the credible and consistent testimonies of two eyewitnesses, sufficient to prove Eribal’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The claim of self-defense was untenable. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Eribal’s own narrative failed to establish unlawful aggression from the victim. His claim of a sudden armed attack by Chan was belied by the witnesses’ account of a calm conversation and apology from the victim, who was shirtless and offered no threat. The number and trajectory of the gunshot wounds, and the act of shooting the fallen victim, negated any claim of reasonable necessity.
However, the Court ruled that treachery was not sufficiently proven. The qualifying circumstance of treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed the attack commenced during a face-to-face conversation. While the first shot may have been sudden, the record did not conclusively establish that Eribal deliberately employed a method to render Chan defenseless from the very start. Absent this specific proof, the crime is homicide, not murder. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The awards for moral and exemplary damages were deleted for lack of basis, while actual damages were reduced to the proven amount of P35,482.50. Civil indemnity of P50,000 was awarded to the victim’s heirs.